Category Archives: U.N.

According to documents published by WikiLeaks this week, the NSA spied on multiple world leaders on behalf of oil companies. The documents revealed that the NSA spied on the private meetings of world leaders such as UN chief Ban Ki-moon, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other European politicians.

The discussion between Ban Ki-moon and Merkel was involving environmental pollution and the impact that fossil fuels had on the environment, and according to the WikiLeaks release, the NSA was listening in for the purpose of collecting information for oil companies.

“Today we showed that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s private meetings over how to save the planet from climate change were bugged by a country intent on protecting its largest oil companies,” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a statement.

“We previously published Hillary Clinton’s orders that US diplomats were to steal the Secretary General’s DNA. The US government has signed agreements with the UN that it will not engage in such conduct against the UN — let alone its Secretary General. It will be interesting to see the UN’s reaction, because if the Secretary General can be targeted without consequence, then everyone from world leader to street sweeper is at risk,” he added.

WikiLeaks publishes highly classified documents showing that the NSA bugged meetings between UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, between Israel prime minister Netanyahu and Italian prime minister Berlusconi, between key EU and Japanese trade ministers discussing their secret trade red-lines at WTO negotiations, as well as details of a private meeting between then French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Merkel and Berlusconi.

The documents also reveal the content of the meetings from Ban Ki Moon’s strategising with Merkel over climate change, to Netanyahu’s begging Berlusconi to help him deal with Obama, to Sarkozy telling Berlusconi that the Italian banking system would soon “pop like a cork”.

These new revelations raise questions about the influence that elements within the oil industry have on secretive government agencies like the NSA. It was not revealed which company was responsible, nor if they paid any type of money, all of these details were obviously kept “off the record.”

However, this would not be the first time that the US government’s military industrial complex has taken action on behalf of US corporations. In fact, it has been happening on a daily basis, across the planet, for many decades as documented in the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, where a former US consultant chronicled his experience toppling democratically elected leaders that were uncooperative with US corporate interests.

John Vibes is an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. He also has a publishing company where he offers a censorship free platform for both fiction and non-fiction writers. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can purchase his books, or get your own book published at his website www.JohnVibes.com.

Back in 2014, civil liberties and privacy advocates were up in arms when the government tried to quietly push through the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA, a law which would allow federal agencies – including the NSA – to share cybersecurity, and really any information with private corporations “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” The most vocal complaint involved CISA’s information-sharing channel, which was ostensibly created for responding quickly to hacks and breaches, and which provided a loophole in privacy laws that enabled intelligence and law enforcement surveillance without a warrant.

Ironically, in its earlier version, CISA had drawn the opposition of tech firms including Apple, Twitter, Reddit, as well as the Business Software Alliance, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and many others including countless politicians and, most amusingly, the White House itself.

In April, a coalition of 55 civil liberties groups and security experts signed onto an open letter opposing it. In July, the Department of Homeland Security itself warned that the bill could overwhelm the agency with data of “dubious value” at the same time as it “sweep[s] away privacy protections.” Most notably, the biggest aggregator of online private content, Facebook, vehemently opposed the legislation however a month ago it was “surprisingly” revealed that Zuckerberg had been quietly on the side of the NSA all along as we reported in “Facebook Caught Secretly Lobbying For Privacy-Destroying “Cyber-Security” Bill.”

Following the blitz response, the push to pass CISA was tabled following a White House threat to veto similar legislation. Then, quietly, CISA reemerged after the same White House mysteriously flip-flopped, expressed its support for precisely the same bill in August.

And then the masks fell off, when it became obvious that not only are corporations eager to pass CISA despite their previous outcry, but that they have both the White House and Congress in their pocket.

As Wired reminds us, when the Senate passed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act by a vote of 74 to 21 in October, privacy advocates were again “aghast” that the key portions of the law were left intact which they said make it more amenable to surveillance than actual security, claiming that Congress has quietly stripped out “even more of its remaining privacy protections.”

“They took a bad bill, and they made it worse,” says Robyn Greene, policy counsel for the Open Technology Institute.

But while Congress was preparing a second assault on privacy, it needed a Trojan Horse with which to enact the proposed legislation into law without the public having the ability to reject it.

It found just that by attaching it to the Omnibus $1.1 trillion Spending Bill, which passed the House early this morning, passed the Senate moments ago and will be signed into law by the president in the coming hours.

In a late-night session of Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced a new version of the “omnibus” bill, a massive piece of legislation that deals with much of the federal government’s funding. It now includes a version of CISA as well. Lumping CISA in with the omnibus bill further reduces any chance for debate over its surveillance-friendly provisions, or a White House veto. And the latest version actually chips away even further at the remaining personal information protections that privacy advocates had fought for in the version of the bill that passed the Senate.

It gets: it appears that while CISA was on hiatus, US lawmakers – working under the direction of corporations adnt the NSA – were seeking to weaponize the revised legislation, and as Wired says, the latest version of the bill appended to the omnibus legislation seems to exacerbate the problem of personal information protections.

It creates the ability for the president to set up “portals” for agencies like the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, so that companies hand information directly to law enforcement and intelligence agencies instead of to the Department of Homeland Security. And it also changes when information shared for cybersecurity reasons can be used for law enforcement investigations. The earlier bill had only allowed that backchannel use of the data for law enforcement in cases of “imminent threats,” while the new bill requires just a “specific threat,” potentially allowing the search of the data for any specific terms regardless of timeliness.

Some, like Senator Ron Wyden, spoke out out against the changes to the bill in a press statement, writing they’d worsened a bill he already opposed as a surveillance bill in the guise of cybersecurity protections.

Senator Richard Burr, who had introduced the earlier version of bill, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Americans deserve policies that protect both their security and their liberty,” he wrote. “This bill fails on both counts.”

Why was the CISA included in the omnibus package, which just passed both the House and the Senate? Because any “nay” votes – or an Obama – would also threaten the entire budget of the federal government. In other words, it was a question of either Americans keeping their privacy or halting the funding of the US government, in effect bankrupting the nation.

And best of all, the rushed bill means there will be no debate.

The bottom line as OTI’s Robyn Green said, “They’ve got this bill that’s kicked around for years and had been too controversial to pass, so they’ve seen an opportunity to push it through without debate. And they’re taking that opportunity.”

The punchline: “They’re kind of pulling a Patriot Act.”

And when Obama signs the $1.1 trillion Spending Bill in a few hours, as he will, it will be official: the second Patriot Act will be the law, and with it what little online privacy US citizens may enjoy, will be gone.

The United Nations is investigating the British government over human rights abuses after a report published last week showed that over over 2,380 people died within six weeks of being declared “fit for work” by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) between December 2011 and February 2014.

The figures were released following requests under the U.K. Freedom of Information Act. The Centre for Welfare Reform has found that disabled people have been hit 19 times harder by austerity cuts than the rest of the U.K. population.

In a recent shocking case, Moira Drury died just over a fortnight ago after the DWP claimed she was ineligible for disability benefits. “She had so many different medical problems,” Nichole Drury, Moira’s mother, told Occupy.com. “She had a head injury in the 1980s, which left her with some right-sided weakness and paralysis. She had epilepsy as a result of the head injury. She had diabetes, she had bladder problems and she had depression. By 2014 she couldn’t get further than a few steps without a wheelchair or mobility scooter.”

Moira was unable to attend a Work Capability Assessment appointment in January due to a severe bout of flu. Two weeks later, she was again unable to attend a rescheduled appointment – this time due to diarrhea and vomiting. At the time, unbeknownst to her, she was also suffering from cancer.

“We later discovered that these bouts of diarrhea and vomiting she was having were probably due either to secondary cancer in the bowel or poor blood supply to the bowel,” explained Nichole. After the second missed appointment, the DWP sent Moira a letter informing her that her benefits would be stopped as they deemed her reasons for non-attendance invalid.

“We know the DWP had up-to-date medical notes from my mother’s [general practitioner] saying she was unfit to work,” Nichole said. “When she gave up on her appeal against the decision at the beginning of the year and decided to open a new claim, the DWP told me they were waiting for forms back from her GP. When I rang the GP’s surgery they said they hadn’t received the forms.” Nichole was surprised at the speed and finality of the DWP’s decision.

“You could be forgiven for thinking this was a deliberate attempt to obstruct someone from receiving help which they are eligible to receive,” she added. “It makes no sense to conclude that someone who has previously been deemed worthy of Employment Support Allowance but is too ill to attend appointments must therefore be fit for work. It’s illogical. [The DWP] claim they are able to organize for someone to visit a claimant if they’re too poorly to get to an appointment, but that’s not what they did for my mother. There were so many opportunities to look at her case properly but nobody did.”

Moira died of organ failure while waiting for her case to be resolved.

Anita Bellows, a spokesperson for the campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts, said “the figures are shocking but they are only the tip of the iceberg.”

“The sanction rate for disabled people has tripled during the last year,” she told Occupy.com. “The pressure to target claimants is still present, but with a reduction in the number of unemployed people, disabled people are now in the firing line. Over 3,000 disabled people are being sanctioned every month.

“DWP recognizes that sanctions have a negative effect on the health of non-disabled people, but for disabled people, this impact can be tragic,” she added, stressing that there are additional hidden figures due to the number of disabled people who have “slipped under the radar.”

“When a claimant is found fit for work, unless they appeal or go on claiming Jobseekers Allowance, or move on to another benefit, they disappear. That is the case for 50% of the disabled people deemed fit for work [by the DWP], and it is safe to assume that some of them would have been too unwell to appeal or to meet the conditionality of the Jobseekers Allowance [benefit]. It is also safe to assume that the mortality rate for this group is high – but DWP is not monitoring what happens to Employment Support Allowance claimants once they have been found fit for work.”

Responding to public outcry over the report, a DWP statement said: “The mortality rate for people who have died while claiming an out-of-work benefit has fallen over a 10-year period. This is in line with the mortality rate for the general working-age population. The government continues to support millions of people on benefits with an £80 billion working-age welfare safety net in place.”

Even as the UN announced over the weekend that it would investigate the U.K. government over the deaths, the DWP remained closed off to any further questions by the media.

In terms of the Workplace Capability Assessment, Bellows from Disabled People Against the Cuts sees many problems that have yet to be addressed.

“There are so many flaws that it is difficult to know where to start,” she said. “Certainly the descriptors are one of the issues – these are a set a rigid questions against which a claimant will be scored. For example, can you lift an empty cardboard box? Or pick up a coin on the table? If you can do this, it shows that your functionality is not totally affected and that therefore you have some potential for work. You don’t score any point.

“These descriptors are also enshrined in the law, which means there is no flexibility around them. If you score 14 points, you are not entitled to Employment Support Allowance, but with 15, you are.”

The tests also fail to take into account the fact that sick and disabled people have “good” and “bad” days, she added.

“The decision is based on a 20-minute assessment, which does not take into consideration how a [person’s] condition can fluctuate from one day to the other. Assumptions are being made based on how a claimant behaves, reacts or interacts on the day of the assessment and does not look beyond this.”

First, Clark cites people who lose a job or break up with a girlfriend as being especially dangerous. Next he tells us what he’d do to those who’re disloyal to the U.S. during the war on terror.

“In World War II, if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech. We put them in a camp,” Clark continued, “They were prisoners of war.””If these people are radicalized, and they don’t support the United States, and they’re disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle, fine, that’s their right, but it’s our (the government’s) right and our obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to get increasingly get tough on this.”

TDC Note – The only question that matters – who gives two cents what the UN wants? Do you? I know I don’t. Get off my property with your misguided, tyrannical “measures”.

Not to be outdone by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in calling for civilian disarmament, the United Nations is taking advantage of the Charleston shootings to join the chorus of confiscators.

In a statement issued on June 19 by the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (yes, that actually exists), committee chairwoman Mireille Fanon Mendes-France demanded that “urgent measures must be taken to prevent gun violence.” Making a point of distinguishing this crime for its effect on “the security of Afro-Americans,” the UN group sent their “heartfelt condolences to the people of the United States of America.”

If the United Nations has its way, there will much more to mourn about in the United States of America. As part of the global effort to grant monopoly control of weapons of all sizes to UN-approved “state actors,” the Arms Trade Treaty mandates the forcible disarmament of all others.

The scheme was endorsed in the “name of the people of the United States” by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 25, 2013.

“I am very pleased to have signed this treaty here today. I signed it because President Obama knows that from decades of efforts that at any time that we work with — cooperatively to address the illicit trade in conventional weapons, we make the world a safer place. And this treaty is a significant step in that effort,” Kerry said at the signing ceremony.

Promptly, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon thanked Kerry and Obama for their complicity in consolidating UN control over weapons and ammunition: “Today, a number of countries signed the Arms Trade Treaty, pushing the total number of signatures to more than half of all Member States.”

The secretary-general, as the depository of the treaty, welcomes every signature to this important pact. At the same time, it is of particular significance that the largest arms exporting country in the world, the United States, is now also among those countries who have committed themselves to a global regulation of the arms trade. He believes this will contribute to efforts to reduce insecurity and suffering for people on all continents. He calls upon other countries to follow suit.

Since the date of the treaty’s signing by Kerry, a number of senators have warned President Obama not to try to enforce the terms of the agreement by use of his infamous “pen and phone.”

In 2013, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent the president a letter reminding him that:

As you know, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution requires the United States Senate to provide its advice and consent before a treaty becomes binding under United States law. The Senate has not yet provided its advice and consent, and may not provide such consent. As a result, the Executive Branch is not authorized to take any steps to implement the treaty.

President Obama knows this and he also knows that in March of that year, 53 senators voted “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

Americans know something, too. They know that this administration has never failed to use every murderous act of armed violence as a pretext for tyranny. From Newtown to the Navy Yard to the latest atrocity committed at a church in Charleston, President Obama has issued scores of executive orders directly violating the Constitution’s explicit prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

In a statement made to The Blaze, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina pointed to this predilection on the part of the president and bolstered her position, saying that “South Carolina has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.”

As reported by The Blaze, “South Carolina is one of five states that have an outright ban on open carry firearms.” Adding, “South Carolina’s concealed carry law requires permit applicants to undergo a background check, submitting two sets of fingerprints, and take a state-approved class on gun safety before passing a written test and a live firing range test.”

Regardless of the rigorous background checks to which one must submit in South Carolina before being permitted by the government to purchase a gun, the question remains: Why should any government possess the power to disarm its citizens? Do I have the power to disarm my neighbor if I believe him to be “dangerous?” Certainly not. If I tried to go over and take his weapon I’d likely be arrested for trespass and assault. Where, then, does government — that is nothing more than the collective expression of the people’s natural right of self-defense — get the power to make legal for them what would be illegal for an individual?

While the UN’s Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent may be correct in calling the barbarous act committed at the Emanuel African Methodist Church a “racist crime motivated by prejudice,” nothing in the words or executive orders of President Obama would have prevented it from happening.

The same goes for the Arms Trade Treaty. The secretary-general, the secretary of state, and every presidential candidate can claim that they want to talk about additional gun regulations out of consideration for the safety of innocent people, but what they really intend to do is take liberty from innocent people and leave those people defenseless to do anything about it.

Arguably, the Arms Trade Treaty would become the law of the United States if the Senate were to ratify the treaty.

While that is the process that the Constitution establishes for the implementation of treaties, fundamental principles of construction and constitutional law dictate that no treaty that violates the Constitution can become the supreme law of the land.

In the case of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty, there is no doubt that regardless of presidential signatures or congressional consent, this treaty cannot pass constitutional muster and therefore will never be the valid law of the land.

Unless, of course, Americans once again acquiesce to President Obama’s assumption of illegal authority and relinquish their rights and weapons regardless of the reasons they should not do so.

This nightmare scenario took a giant leap toward reality on Thursday, June 18 when 218 members of Congress voted to grant the president “trade promotion authority (TPA),” the so-called “fast track.”

With this new power, the president is free to unilaterally issue international executive orders that are binding on the United States, so long as those orders concern trade.

Is there any question whether President Obama will use this new power over “trade” to implement the provisions of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty? Somewhere, perhaps, a teleprompter is being loaded with a speech mourning the death of so many innocent men and women and promising to “heal” the country by making it more difficult for people to “own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer” (the language from the ATT) firearms.

There is not a person of sound mind who doesn’t deplore and denounce crimes such as that committed in Charleston. Senseless brutality leaves us all scarred and diminishes our collective virtue.

Wise men, however, would also recognize that statements such as that issued by the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent demanding that “urgent measures” be taken to reduce gun violence will — as with all similar statements made since the establishment of the modern state — have no effect on violence.

It will, however, leave Americans unable to defend themselves against the most violent armed force ever created: government.

May 6, 2015 (Valery Kulikov – NEO) – The recent scandal involving the sexual abuse of African children carried out by members of a UN peacekeeping mission, despite numerous efforts of this international organization to play it down, will not be ignored. And the international community must finally recall what was the original purpose of the UN as established by allied powers after the Second World War in the name of peace and security for all people on the planet.

According to a series of publications by Bruxelles2, France Info, Guardian and a number of other media outlets, a number of French and Georgian soldiers that were employed in the UN peacekeeping operation “Sangaris” in Central Africa, are responsible of child sexual abuse.

It should be recalled that an armed conflict between the government of the Central African Republic and Muslim rebels, many of which took part in the civil war of 2004-2007, resulted in the French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announcing that France would deploy a thousand soldiers in CAR to carry out a UN peacekeeping mission. On December 9, 2013 the United States decided to take part in this operation, while the Georgian parliament also agreed to send its soldiers to CAR a year later, on February 22, 2014. By June 2014 the number of Georgian Armed Forces in the Central African Republic reached 140 members.

According to the French news agency France Info, French and Georgian soldiers were raping children aged 8 to 15 years in the area near M’Poko airport and were subjecting them to sexual exploitation.

Some of the incidents that occurred between December 2013 and June 2014 in a refugee camp at M’Poko airport were depicted in a special UN closed report that was titled “Sexual Abuse on Children by International Armed Forces.” In particular, the document contains witnesses of local boys that were subjected to sexual exploitation, including rape and homosexual relations in exchange for food and water. The majority of the victims were orphans, increasing their vulnerability. In the summer of 2014 this report was handed over to the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, however no action was taken to investigate the factual findings.

In these circumstances and in order to stop systematic child rape in CAR, one of the staff members of the Geneva Branch of the United Nations Anders Kompass had given those documents to French authorities on his on initiative, in hopes that they would take effective measures to investigate the described incidents and punish those responsible. However, the highest ranks of the United Nations didn’t seem willing to “wash their dirty linen in public”, instead they are now planning to sack the “snitch” for an “unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information.”

In this regard, one must note that in the past the United Nations has been caught trying to conceal incidents of pedophilia numerous times, including sexual exploitation of children in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo and Bosnia, along with concealing incidents involving sexual harassment in Haiti, Burundi and Liberia.

Recently, some serious accusations against the UN were made by James Wasserstrom, a former US diplomat that was fired from the UN once he expressed his suspicions about the corruption among senior officials of the former UN mission in Kosovo. In particular, this former diplomat stressed the fact that instead of punishing Anders Kompass, this international organization must have taken all possible measures to prevent such abuse in the future, along with punishing all responsible figures in a timely manner. A responsible official of the Swedish Foreign Ministry Anders Ronquist, has also raised his voice in the defense of Anders Kompass, stating that those incidents must never again occur in the future. There’s little doubt that those crimes along with the UN’s attempts to hide them do not erode the credibility of this international organization.

But the fact is that this credibility has already been jeopardized by numerous cases of unjustified use of force initiated by certain UN members to achieve their own geopolitical goals. Once the UN became a political servant of Washington, it has started serving US military contractors that hungry for even more bloodshed all across the globe. This policy has already led to the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries of the Middle East, along with Africa and the former Yugoslavia.

If there’s going to be no change in the policies and actions of the United Nations officials now, it is possible that this organization may suffer the sorry fate of its predecessor – the League of Nations, that was just as unable to prevent conflicts and global threats to humanity on the basis of respect to international laws.

If you are not familiar with eugenics, it’s essentially the Victorian science of depopulation – mainly along racial and class lines. Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation appear to be at the forefront of this post-modern, social engineering movement that is advanced through vaccine technology. Last year 21WIREreported:

“Other lines of current immunological contraceptive research continue to seek what, during the 1930s, Max Mason of the Rockefeller Foundation called “anti-hormones”: vaccines to block hormones needed for very early pregnancy and a vaccine to block the hormone needed for the surface of the egg to function properly.”

In order to cement all of these wonderful command and control measures into place, elites like Gates believe that we should scrap the whole concept of the modern nation state, and even eliminate the UN as well. According to these luminaries, their preferred vision is that of an unelected New World Government, run by a self-selected group of political and financial oligarchs.

In the mind of Gates and his elite tribe, only these oligarchs are equipped to make decisions about the fate and future of mankind.

In view of the urgent problems in the world is a global government “badly needed,” said Gates. “Take the UN, it has been created especially for the security in the world. We are ready for war, because we have taken every precaution. We have NATO, we have divisions, jeeps, trained people. But what is with epidemics? How many doctors do we have as much planes, tents, what scientists? If there were such a thing as a world government, we would be better prepared. “

Gates founded in the 1990s with his wife Melinda, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support people in health care and the fight against poverty worldwide…

In a courageous and brilliant speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pierced the veil of obfuscation that characterizes too many speeches at the United Nations, and delivered a scathing denunciation of Western imperialism, imperialism that can only be accurately described as global theft. Lavrov, on behalf of the Russian Federation implicitly warned that US/NATO is risking global war in embarking on its campaign to seize and dominate huge territories, while inexorably and ruthlessly determined to conquer and subjugate Russia, having learned nothing from the historic reality that Napolean’s effort to dominate Russia led to the collapse of Napoleonic France, and Hitler’s attempt to subjugate Russia led to the obliteration of his Third Reich.

I remember years back when I was still writing for my original website, Neithercorp.us, we came across a then little known video of air tight “coffin liners”, hundreds of thousands, stacked in a field in the middle of Madison, Georgia in close proximity to Atlanta and the home of the CDC. We helped break that story which immediately swept through independent media circles. Owners of the property leased to store the hermetically sealing plastic coffins stated that it was the CDC that had rented the land for storage of the coffins. Confirmation from the CDC has not been forthcoming.

I have been keeping my eyes open for any mention of these kinds of coffins since that story was released, knowing that one day, they would suddenly be touted by the government as if they had always been in use. It appears that day is close at hand…

In a story for Yahoo News, the CDC says that in the event of an Ebola outbreak in the U.S., bodies of the deceased would be required to be buried within “hermetically sealed caskets”, which would prevent the escape of microbes during funerals. An administrator of the Dallas Institute Of Funeral Service interviewed in the article states that he has never come across any such caskets in his industry, meaning, hermetically sealed coffins are NOT common in the slightest for burial. The CDC coffins in Madison, Georgia, though, ARE designed to prevent spread of infection. In fact, the patent for these coffins confirms that they are meant for the burial of bodies exposed to infectious diseases. You can read the patent here:

This would suggest that the CDC has stockpiled such coffins in places like Madison, Georgia specifically in preparation for a viral outbreak. Meaning, the CDC has been expecting the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans due to infection for at least the past six years. That is a LONG period of preparation. Such preparation requires certainty, not hypothesis, especially were the federal government is involved. Our government was so certain of a viral catastrophe they purchased fields full of sealing coffins to be ready for it; not to prevent it, but to have the means to clean up after it. Let that thought settle for a moment, and then read my latest article, ‘An Ebola Outbreak Would Be Advantageous For Globalists’, to understand the bigger picture…

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.